Polaris Images Corporation v. ENTtech Media Group LLC
- Katherine Failla
- 1:19-cv-08208
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Polaris Images v. ENTtech, Judge Failla denied ENTtech’s fee motion because dismissal without prejudice did not make it a prevailing party.
ENTtech’s request for attorney’s fees was denied. Polaris Images Corporation and Nkechi Diallo remained free, as stated by the court, to refile the dismissed claims because the action had been dismissed without prejudice.
What happened
Polaris Images Corporation and Nkechi Diallo voluntarily dismissed their copyright case against ENTtech Media Group LLC without prejudice after disputes about who should be named as plaintiff. ENTtech then sought attorney’s fees.
The court explained that a party is “prevailing” only when a court-approved action changes the parties’ legal relationship. A voluntary dismissal without prejudice does not do that because the plaintiffs remain free to bring the claims again.
Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied ENTtech’s motion for attorney’s fees under the Copyright Act and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion. The court did not decide whether the underlying claims were valid.
The detailed version
- Polaris Images Corporation v. ENTtech Media Group LLC · No. 1:19-cv-08208
- Katherine Failla
- June 3, 2020
Background
Polaris Images Corporation originally sued ENTtech Media Group LLC. At a later conference, the court allowed Polaris to file an amended complaint. The amended complaint instead named Nkechi Diallo, also known as Rachel Dolezal, as the plaintiff and no longer named Polaris. ENTtech objected to that substitution, arguing that it did not comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15 and 21.
Polaris and Diallo then voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). ENTtech moved for attorney’s fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505, which allows a court in a copyright case to award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party as part of the costs.
Legal standard
The court applied the rule that a prevailing party is one who benefits from a court-approved change in the parties’ legal relationship. For a defendant that obtains a dismissal, the dismissal must protect the defendant from the risk of further litigation on the merits before the defendant qualifies as prevailing.
The court noted that a voluntary dismissal without prejudice is not a court-approved change in the parties’ legal relationship. It is a unilateral action by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff remains free to bring the claims again.
ENTtech’s argument
ENTtech argued that it should still be treated as the prevailing party because, in its view, Polaris and Diallo had admitted that they lacked standing. ENTtech contended that this supposed admission prevented them from bringing the dismissed claims again.
The court acknowledged that the plaintiffs’ statement that Diallo, rather than Polaris, was the proper party might make a future lawsuit unsuccessful. But the court held that the statement did not bar the plaintiffs from refiling claims against ENTtech. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, the plaintiffs remained free to refile the dismissed claims.
Ruling and effect
The court held that ENTtech was not a prevailing party and therefore was not entitled to attorney’s fees under 17 U.S.C. § 505. Judge Katherine Polk Failla denied ENTtech’s motion for attorney’s fees and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion at docket entry 24. The order addressed only the fee request; it did not resolve the merits of the underlying copyright claims.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.